Modelling large-deforming fluid-saturated porous media using an

Eulerian incremental formulationI

Eduard Rohana,∗, Vladimır Lukesa

aEuropean Centre of Excellence, NTIS – New Technologies for Information Society Faculty of AppliedSciences, University of West Bohemia, Univerzitniı 22, 30614 Pilsen, Czech Republic

Abstract

The paper deals with modelling fluid saturated porous media subject to large deformation.An Eulerian incremental formulation is derived using the problem imposed in the spatialconfiguration in terms of the equilibrium equation and the mass conservation. Perturbationof the hyperelastic porous medium is described by the Biot model which involves poroelasticcoefficients and the permeability governing the Darcy flow. Using the material derivativewith respect to a convection velocity field we obtain the rate formulation which allows forlinearization of the residuum function. For a given time discretization with backward finitedifference approximation of the time derivatives, two incremental problems are obtainedwhich constitute the predictor and corrector steps of the implicit time-integration scheme.Conforming mixed finite element approximation in space is used. Validation of the numericalmodel implemented in the SfePy code is reported for an isotropic medium with a hyperelasticsolid phase. The proposed linearization scheme is motivated by the two-scale homogenizationwhich will provide the local material poroelastic coefficients involved in the incrementalformulation.

Keywords: large deformation, fluid saturated hyperelastic porous media, updatedLagrangian formulation, Biot model, finite element method

1. Introduction

Within the small strain theory, behaviour of the fluid-saturated porous materials (FSPM)was described by M.A. Biot in [3] and further developed in [4]. It has been proved (seee.g. [2, 1] cf. [41]) that the poroelastic coefficients obtained by M.A. Biot and D.G. Willisin [6] hold also for quasistatic situations, cf. [11]. In the dynamic case the inertia forcescannot be neglected, however, for small fluid pressure gradients leading to slow interstitialflows in pores under slow deformation and within the limits of the small strain theory,the effective poroelasticity coefficients of the material describing the macroscopic behaviour

IThe article published in Advances in Engineering Software, DOI: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.11.003.∗Corresponding author.Email address: rohan@kme.zcu.cz (Eduard Rohan)

c©2017. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.

arX

iv:1

610.

0510

3v2

[m

ath.

NA

] 1

6 Ja

n 20

18

can be obtained by homogenization of the static fluid-structure interaction at the level ofmicropores, see also [40].

Behaviour of the FSPM at finite strains has been studied within the mixture theories[8, 9] and also using the macroscopic phenomenological approach [5, 17]. The former ap-proach has been pursued in works which led to the theory of porous media (TPM) [19, 23, 25],including elastoplasticity [7], or extended for multi-physics problems, see e.g. [31]. Microme-chanical approaches based on a volume averaging were considered in [22, 24]. The issue ofcompressibility for the hyperelastic solid phase was considered in [26], cf. [21]. A very thor-ough revision of the viscous flows in hyperelastic media with inertia effects was given in [14].There is a vast body of the literature devoted to the numerical modelling of porous mediaunder large deformation, namely in the context of geomechanical applications, thus, takinginto account plasticity of the solid phase [13, 35, 33]. Although the fluid retention in unsat-urated media is so far not well understood in the context of deterministic models, a numberof publications involve this phenomenon in computational models [32, 44]. Concerning theproblem formulation, three classical approaches can be used. Apart of the total Lagrangian(TL) formulations employed in the works related to the TPM [19, 23, 25], the updatedLagrangian (UL) formulation has been considered in [32, 30, 42]. As an alternative, theALE formulation provides some advantages, like the prevention of the FE mesh distorsions,cf. [33], cf. [11]. Transient dynamic responses of the hyperelastic porous medium has beenstudied in [30], within the framework of the UL formulation with the linearization developedin [7]. In [42] the model has been enriched by the hydraulic hysteresis in unsaturated media.

It is worth to recall the generally accepted open problem of “missing one more equation”in the phenomenological theories of the FSPM. This deficiency can be circumvented by up-scaling. For this, in particular, the homogenization of periodic media can be used, althoughseveral other treatments have been proposed, see e.g. [27] where the Biot’s theory was recov-ered within the linearization concept. The conception of homogenization applied to upscalethe Biot continuum in the framework of the updated Lagrangian formulation has been pro-posed [39], cf. [37]; recently in [11], where the ALE formulation was employed and somesimplification were suggested to arrive at a computationally tractable two-scale problem. In[38] we described a nonlinear model of the Biot-type poroelasticity to treat situations whenthe deformation has a significant influence on the permeability tensor controlling the seepageflow and on the other poroelastic coefficients. Under the small deformation assumption andusing the first order gradient theory of the continuum, the homogenized constitutive lawswere modified to account for their dependence on the macroscopic variables involved in theupscaled problem. For this, the sensitivity analysis known from the shape optimization wasadopted.

In this paper we propose a consistent Eulerian incremental formulation for the FSPMwhich is intended as the basis for multi-scale computational analysis of FSPM undergo-ing large deformation. In the spatial configuration, we formulate the dynamic equilibriumequation using the concept of the effective stress involved in the Biot model. The fluidredistribution is governed by the Darcy flow model with approximate inertia effects, and bythe mass conservation where the pore inflation is controlled through the Biot stress couplingcoefficients. The compressibility of the solid and fluid phases are respected by the Biot mod-

2

ulus. The solid skeleton is represented by the neo-Hookean hyperelastic model employed in[30], although any finite strain energy function could be considered. First, the rate formula-tion, i.e. the Eulerian formulation, is derived by the differentiation of the residual functionwith respect to time using the conception of the material derivative consistent with the ob-jective rate principle. The time discretization leads to the updated Lagrangian formulationwhereby the out-of-balance terms are related to the residual function associated with theactual reference configuration. Although, in this paper, we do not describe behaviour at thepore level, the proposed formulation is coherent with the homogenization procedure whichcan provide the desired effective material parameters at the deformed configuration. In rela-tionships with existing works [39, 37] and [11], this is an important aspect which justifies theproposed formulation as an improved modelling framework for a more accurate multi-scalecomputational analysis of the porous media.

The paper is organized, as follows. In Section 2 we present a model of the hyperelasticFSPM described in the spatial configuration and formulate the nonlinear problem. Theinertia effects related to both phases are accounted for in Definition 1, although in Defi-nition 2 we consider the simplified dynamics. Section 3 constitutes the main part of thepaper. There we introduce the rate Eulerian formulation using the above mentioned differ-entiation of the residual function. Then we explain the time discretization which leads tothe finite time step incremental formulation suitable for the numerical computation usingthe finite element (FE) method. In this procedure, we neglect the inertia terms associatedwith the fluid seepage in the skeleton. Definitions 4 and 5 provide two approximate incre-mental formulations related the predictor and corrector steps, respectively. In Section 4,we provide a numerical illustration and validation of the incremental formulation using 2Dexamples considered in the work [30], namely the 1D compression test and the consolidationof a partially loaded layer. For the validation we use the comparison between responsesobtained by the proposed model with those obtained by linear models. Besides inspection ofthe displacement fields, we show the influence of the time step length on the fluid content,strain energy and the dissipation.

Basic notations. Through the paper we shall adhere to the following notation.The spatialposition x in the medium is specified through the coordinates (x1, x2, x3) with respect toa Cartesian reference frame. The Einstein summation convention is used which stipulatesimplicitly that repeated indices are summed over. For any two vectors a , b, the innerproduct is a · b, for any two 2nd order tensors A,B the trace of ABT is A : B = AijBij.The gradient with respect to coordinate x is denoted by ∇. We shall use gradients of thevector fields; the symmetric gradient of a vector function u , i.e. the small strain tensor ise (u) = 1/2[(∇u)T + ∇u ] where the transpose operator is denoted by the superscript T .The components of a vector u will be denoted by ui for i = 1, ..., 3, thus u = (ui). Tounderstand the tensorial notation, in this context, (∇v)ij = ∂jvi, so that ((∇v)T )ij = ∂ivj,where ∂i = ∂/∂xi. By D we denote the closure of a bounded domain D. n is a unit normalvector defined on a boundary ∂D, oriented outwards of D. The real number set is denotedby R. Other notations are introduced through the text.

3

2. Model of large deforming porous medium

Behaviour of the FSPM is governed by the equilibrium equations and the mass conserva-tion governing the Darcy flow in the large deforming porous material. Initial configurationassociated with material coordinates Xi, i = 1, 2, 3 and with domain Ω0 is mapped to thespatial (current) configuration at time t associated with spatial coordinates xi and with do-main Ω(t). Thus, xi = ϕi(t,X) where ϕ = (ϕi) is continuously differentiable. By F = (Fij)we denote the deformation gradient given by Fij = ∂xi/∂Xj = δij + ∂ui/∂Xj.

2.1. Governing equations – Biot model

We shall first introduce the governing equations for the problem of fluid diffusion throughhyperelastic porous skeleton. These involve the Cauchy stress tensor σ = (σij), the displace-ment field u = (ui), the bulk pressure1 p and the perfusion velocity w = (wi) which describesmotion of the fluid relative to the solid phase. The constitutive laws for σ = (σij) reads as

σ = −pB + σeff(u) , (1)

σeff = J−1 [µb + (λ ln J − µ)I ] , (2)

where p is the pore fluid pressure, J = detF expresses the relative volume change of theskeleton, b = FF T is the left deformation tensor, B = (Bij) is the Biot coupling coefficient.Further, by “eff” we refer to the effective (hyperelastic) stress, which is related to a strainenergy function. Here we consider a neo-Hookean-type material model employed in [30],which is parameterized by µ and the Lame constant λ; for a small strain approximation,µ′ := µ− λ ln J expresses the shear modulus.

The inertia of the solid and fluid phases is expressed by the skeleton acceleration as andby the relative acceleration of the fluid

aR =

˙(w

φ

), w = φ(v f − v s) , (3)

where v f , v s are the solid and fluid phase velocities, respectively2. It is now possible toestablish the Darcy law extended for dynamic flows in the moving porous skeleton. Accordingto Coussy [16]

w = −K (∇p− ρf (f − af − a))

≈ −K (∇p− ρf (f − as − αaR))(4)

where K = (Kij) is the hydraulic permeability associated with the well known Darcy law,f = (fi) is the volume force acting on the fluid and a is an additional acceleration accounting

1We adhere to the standard sign convention: the positive pressure means the negative volumetric stressinduced by compression.

2This expression for aR is merely approximate since the dot means the material derivative with respectto the skeleton, for details see e.g. . [14].

4

for the tortuosity effect. The fluid acceleration can be approximated using the one of theskeleton and using the relative acceleration introduced in (3) multiplied by a correctionfactor α, see also [16].

Thus, the balance of forces (equilibrium equation) and the volume conservation read as

−∇ · σ = ρ(g − as)− ρfaR , (5)

B : ∇∂u∂t

+∇ ·w +M∂p

∂t= 0 , (6)

where M is the Biot compressibility, g is the volume force acting on the mixture, ρ is themean density.

We remark, that the system (1)-(6), first introduced by M. Biot, see e.g. [16, 20], isbased on the mixture theory. In such approach the microstructure is represented by volumefractions, whereas any other features of the microstructural geometry and topology can onlybe regarded by values of the constitutive coefficients. Although, in many realistic situationsthe discussed model cannot be recovered by a more rigorous homogenization treatment(which reflects genuinely the geometry of the microstructure and takes in to account internalfriction induced by the fluid viscosity) — this phenomenological model can still be used totreat those media for which a detailed description of the microstructure would be too complexand practically impossible.

2.2. Nonlinear problem formulation

The differential equations (5)-(6) which hold in Ω(t), are supplemented by the boundaryconditions on ∂Ω(t) which is decomposed into boundary segments according to the followingsplits:

∂Ω = ∂uΩ ∪ ∂σΩ , ∂uΩ ∩ ∂σΩ = ∅ ,∂Ω = ∂pΩ ∪ ∂wΩ , ∂pΩ ∩ ∂wΩ = ∅ .

(7)

In general, we may consider

u = u∂ on ∂uΩ ,

σ · n = h on ∂σΩ ,

p = p∂ on ∂pΩ ,

w · n = w∂n on ∂wΩ .

(8)

Since the first and the second time derivatives are involved in (4)-(6), the initial conditionsshould involve u , p,w , and also u . It is worth noting that these imposed in Ω0 must beconsistent with the boundary conditions on ∂Ω0 at time t = 0.. On ∂wΩ(t), the impermeableboundary will be considered for the sake of simplicity, i.e. w∂n = 0.

In order to establish the weak formulation of the problem defined in Section 2.2, weneed the admissibility sets for displacements and for pressures admissibility sets (we do not

5

specify functional spaces, assuming enough of regularity for all involved unknown functions)

V (t) = v | v = u∂ on ∂uΩ(t) ,W (t) = ψ| n ·ψ = w∂n on ∂wΩ(t) ,

Q(t) = q| q = p∂ on ∂pΩ(t) ,(9)

and the associated spaces for the test functions

V0(t) = v | v = 0 on ∂uΩ(t) ,W0(t) = ψ| n ·ψ = 0 on ∂wΩ(t) ,

Q0(t) = q| q = 0 on ∂pΩ(t) .(10)

We consider the force equilibrium equation and the fluid content conservation equationsatisfied in the weak sense. Further we assume that the material properties ensure thefollowing properties:

µ > 0 , λ > 0 , K = K T , B = BT , M ≥ 0 , (11)

whereby K and B are positive definite.

Remark 1. Incompressibility issue. When an incompressible solid is considered, the stressdecomposition in the solid phase reads σ = σeff − pI , thus, B = I in (1). This is theTerzaghi effective stress principle confirmed by both the micromechanical and homogeniza-tion approaches, see e.g. [22] and [41]. It is worth noting, that the fluid compressibility hasno influence on the stress decomposition. In general, M in (6) reflects the bulk compress-ibility of both the phases. For an incompressible solid, M = φ/κf . Assuming the solidincompressibility, J expresses the porosity change, thus, the fluid content variation due tothe skeleton deformation. Therefore, the strain energy of the hyperelastic solid should beindependent of J . However, in this paper we employ the same neo-Hookean material usedin [30] where the strain energy depends on J , although in the mass conservation the solidphase is considered as incompressible. We admit this inconsistency to be able to validatethe formulation proposed in the present paper using the results obtained in [30]. It is worthto remark, that the issue of compressible components has been discussed in a detail in [26].

•We can now establish the weak formulation of the dynamic flow-deformation problem

which respects the inertia terms induced by the mixture and also by the relative fluid flowin the skeleton, cf. [14].

Definition 1. (Weak solution for the three field formulation)The weak solution of the problemintroduced in Section 2.2 is the triplet (u ,w , p) ∈ V (t) ×W (t) × Q(t) which for all t > 0satisfies

Φt((u ,w , p); (v ,ψ, q)) = 0 ∀(v ,ψ, q) ∈ V0(t)×W0(t)×Q0(t) (12)

6

where

Φt((u ,w , p); (v ,0 , 0)) =

∫Ω(t)

σ : ∇v −∫

Ω(t)

(ρ(g − u)− ρf

˙φ−1w

)· v −

∫∂σΩ

h · v ,

Φt((u ,w , p); (0 ,ψ, 0)) =

∫Ω(t)

ψ ·(w + K

(∇p+ ρf

(u + α

˙φ−1w − f

))),

Φt((u ,w , p); (0 ,0 , q)) =

∫Ω(t)

(qB : ∇u −∇q ·w +Mpq) .

(13)

The time discretization and the numerical solutions will be considered only for situationswhen reduced dynamics provides a sufficient physical approximation. By neglecting effectsof the accelerations aR, the following two field formulation can be obtained.

Definition 2. (Weak solution of the two filed formulation — reduced dynamics) The weaksolution of the problem introduced in Section 2.2 is the couple (u , p) ∈ V (t) × Q(t) whichfor all t > 0 satisfies

Φt((u , p); (v , q)) = 0 ∀(v , q) ∈ V0(t)×Q0(t) (14)

where

Φt((u , p); (v , 0)) =

∫Ω(t)

σ : ∇v −∫

Ω(t)

ρ(g − u) · v −∫∂σΩ

h · v ,

Φt((u , p); (0 , q)) =

∫Ω(t)

(qB : ∇u +∇q ·K (∇p+ ρf (u − f ) +Mpq) .

(15)

In both the Definitions 1 and 2, the domain Ω(t) = x = ϕ(t,X), X ∈ Ω0, such thatxi = ϕi(t,X) = Xi + ui(t, x). It reveals the implicit definition of the solution being definedin the domain Ω(t) which itself depends on the solution. To avoid such a complication, thethree classical approaches, i.e. the TL, UL, or ALE formulations can be used. We use theincremental UL (updated Lagrangian) formulation where the recent domain Ω(t− δt) servesas the reference configuration, see e.g. [18, 43] for details.

Besides the kinematics associated with the strain filed, also the solution-dependent vol-ume fraction of the fluid and the fluid density contribute to the nonlinearity of the modelequations,

ρf = ρf0 expp− p0

κf ,

φs = φs0J−1 ,

φ ≡ φf = 1− φs = 1− (1− φf0)J−1 ,

ρ = φfρf + φsρs = φρf + (1− φ)ρs ,

aR =˙

φ−1w = φ−1(w −wφs0(φJ)−1divu) ,

(16)

7

where p0 is the reference pressure and the last expression of aR can be approximated byw/φ.Nevertheless, below we confine our treatment to situations, where aR can be neglected.

The material coefficients M , B and K are defined using the following formulas:

M =φ

κf, B = I , K = K expκ(J − 1) , (17)

where κf is the bulk modulus of the fluid, K is a constant permeability tensor and κ > 0.

3. Consistent incremental formulation

In this section we derive the consistent incremental formulation for the model introducedabove. It will be done in two steps. By time differentiation with a given perturbationvelocity field introduced in (18), associated with the configuration transformation, first wederive the rate of the residual function Φ which allows to define an approximated problemfor computing increments of the displacement and pressure field associated with a timeincrement δt. As a next step, the time discretization is considered. A suitable approximationof the time derivatives occurring in the rate formulation leads to a linear subproblem whichcan be solved for the increments and, consequently, to updated state variables of the porousmedium.

We shall need the perturbation velocity field V defined in Ω(t) which satisfies V ∈ V (t).This allows us to introduce the perturbed position and the perturbed domain

x′ = x+ τV(x) , Ω′ = Ω(t+ τ) = x′| x ∈ Ω(t) , (18)

where τ is the perturbation time. Using the convection velocity V , we can express theassociated material derivative ˙( ) = d

d τ|τ=0 which will be used to derive the rate form of the

residuum in (15).

Remark 2. Material derivative and convection field V. The material derivative is intro-duced by virtue of the perturbation (18). It is worth noting that this differentiation is usedin the sensitivity analysis of functionals associated with optimal shape problem where thepartial differential constraints are considered. In this context, the convection velocity fieldcalled “the design velocity” is established to link perturbations of the designed boundarywith perturbations of the material point in the domain. The following formulae can bederived easily, see e.g. [28, 29].

d

d τ

(∫Ω(t+τ)

) ∣∣τ=0

=

∫Ω(t)

∇ · V ,

d

d τ(∇x′v)

∣∣τ=0

= −∇v∇V = −(∂v

∂xk

∂Vk∂xi

) .

(19)

•The incremental formulation which is defined below is based on (14) rewritten for time t+

δt, whereby the residual function can be approximated by Φt+δt, as follows. Let t ∈ [t, t+δt]

8

and assume the associated configuration (the primary state fields S(t) ≈ S = (u , w , p) andall dependent quantities at t = t) can be estimated, while we assume that S(t) is known3.In general, denoting by Z = (v ,ψ, q) the test functions

Φt+δt(S(t+ δt),Z) ≈ Φt+δt(S,Z) = Φt(S(t),Z) + δΦ(S,Z) (δS, δtV) , (20)

where is the increment δΦ(S,Z) (δS, δtV) is the differential of the residual functionalevaluated at time t with respect to the state variation δS and configuration perturbation δtVassociated with the time increment δt. For t = t, (20) provides a first order approximationof Φt+δt using the tangent defined at t. In general, a secant-based approximation can beestablished when an estimate of S is available at t. This approach is followed in this work;in Section 3.3 we introduce a predictor-corrector algorithm within the time discretizationscheme applied to (20).

Definition 3. (Incremental formulation) Given fields S(t) = (u(t), p(t)) ∈ V (t) × Q(t) andS = (u , p) defined in Ω(t) and Ω, respectively, the new state S at time t+ δt satisfies

δΦ(S;Z) (δS, δtV) = −Φt(S;Z) ∀Z ∈ V0(t)×Q0(t) , (21)

where

u = u + δu , p = p+ δp ,

where δu = uδt , δp = pδt ,(22)

pointwise at any x ∈ Ω(t). The updated domain Ω(t + δt) is obtained using updatedcoordinates, xi(t+ δt) = xi(t) + δui(x).

This definition can be applied to introduce a time integration numerical scheme based onthe predictor-corrector steps: after a time discretization, by putting t := t, (21) yields thepredictor problem for computing an approximate increment δS which can be used to intro-duce an intermediate state S at t ∈]t, t+ δt]. Then (21) provides a “corrected approximateincrement”.

3.1. The Lie derivative of the Cauchy stress

To derive the rate form of the force-equilibrium equation we need the Lie derivative ofthe Cauchy stress which is related to the 2nd Piola-Kirchhoff stress S by

σ = J−1FSF T , (23)

recalling the notation J = detF . Since the perturbation of deformation gradient F isδFij = ∂Vi/∂Xj, the Lie derivative LV− of the Cauchy stress σ and of the Kirchhoff stressτ = Jσ are related to the material derivatives σ and τ by the following expressions

σ = −σ∇ · V +∇Vσ + σ(∇V)T + LV− σ ,

τ =˙

(Jσ) = ∇Vτ + τ (∇V)T + LV− τ ,(24)

3In fact, an approximation Φt is known rather than an exact residual which should be zero

9

where

LV− σ = J−1FSF T , LV− τ = FSF T . (25)

Application of the material derivative with respect to the convection field V , see Remark 2to differentiate the first integral in (15)1 yields (we abbreviate Ω(t) = Ω)∫

Ω

σ : ∇v∇ · V +

∫Ω

σ : ∇v −∫

Ω

σ : (∇v∇V) =

∫Ω

(∇Vσ + LV− σ) : ∇v , (26)

where LV− σ is defined using the constitutive relationship. In the poroelastic medium, thestress is decomposed into its effective and volumetric parts: σ = σeff − pB . The Liederivative of the effective part of the Cauchy stress can be expressed in terms of the tangentialstiffness tensor and linear velocity strain (with respect to the spatial coordinates, i.e. e(u) =1/2(L + LT ) where L = ∇xu)

LV− σeff = J−1FSF T = IDeffe (u) . (27)

Above IDeff = (Deffijkl) is the tangential elasticity tensor which can be identified for a given

strain energy function. The Lie derivative of the volumetric part σp = −pB can be ex-pressed,

LV− σp = p(∇VB + BT (∇V)T )− pB∇ · V − ˙(pB) , (28)

and substituted into (26) to express the terms involving σp, thus∫Ω

(∇Vσp + LV− σp) : ∇v

= −∫

Ω

(p(∇ · V)B : ∇v + p∇VB : ∇v − p(∇VB + BT (∇V)T ) : ∇v +

˙(pB) : ∇v

)= −

∫Ω

(pB : ∇v∇ · V − p(∇VB)T : ∇v +

˙(pB) : ∇v

).

(29)

3.2. Rate formulation in the Euler configuration

The rate form is introduced to derive a consistent linearization of the nonlinear prob-lem. We shall need the material derivative of the configuration-dependent variables. Theperturbation defined by (18) induces perturbation of φ, ρf and ρ,

δρf = ρfδp

κf,

δφs = −φs0J−1divV ,δφ = −δφs = φs0J−1divV ,

δρ = (ρf − ρs)(1− φ)divV + φρfδp

κf.

(30)

10

The following differentials of K and M hold, see (17):

δM∗ = − φs0

Jκf∇ · u∗ ,

δK ∗ = JκK expκ(J − 1)∇ · u∗ .(31)

Obviously, δB = 0, since B = I is constant.In general we consider non-conservative loading by boundary tractions acting on ∂σΩ.

The classical result of the sensitivity analysis in shape optimization yields the materialderivative of the virtual power induced by the traction forces h ,

δ

∫∂σΩ

h · v =

∫∂σΩ

(δh + (n · V)Hh) · v , (32)

where n is the unit normal vector to ∂σΩ and H = k1 + k2 is the 2-multiple of the meancurvature of the deformed surface.

3.2.1. Incremental operators

The following expressions are obtained from (26)-(30). We consider a reference stateS = (u ,w , p) and its perturbation δS = (δu , δw , δp) associated with the convection δV .Differentiation of Φt(S; (v ,0 , 0)) yields

δΦt(S; (v ,0 , 0)) (δS, δV) =

∫Ω

IDeffe(δu) : e(v) +

∫Ω

(∇δVσeff) : ∇v

−∫

Ω

(pB : ∇v∇ · δV − pB : ∇v∇δV + (Bδp+ δBp) : ∇v)

−∫

Ω

(ρ(δg − δu)− ρfδ(

˙φ−1w)

)· v −

∫Ω

(δρ(g − u)− δρf

˙φ−1w

)· v

−∫

Ω

(ρ(g − u)− ρf

˙φ−1w

)· v∇ · δV −

∫∂σΩ

(δh + (n · δV)Hh) · v .

(33)

Differentiation of Φt(S; (0 ,0 , q)) yields

δΦt(S; (0 ,0 , q)) (δS, δV) =

∫Ω

q (∇ · δVB : ∇u + B : ∇δu −B : ∇u∇δV + δB : ∇u)

−∫

Ω

(w · ∇q∇ · δV + δw · ∇q −w · (∇q∇δV)) +

∫Ω

(qδMp+Mδp+ qMp∇ · δV) .

(34)

In both (33) and (34) we need to express w and its perturbation δw which can be obtainedpointwise in Ω,

δw = −K(∇δp−∇p∇δV + ρf

(δu + αδ(

˙φ−1w)− δf

)+ δρf

(u + α

˙φ−1w − f

))− δK

(∇p+ ρf

(u + α

˙φ−1w − f

)).

(35)

11

Using (33)-(35) substituted in equation (21), we obtain the problem for computing in-crements (δu , δp) which are related to a finite time increment δt. As the convection fieldδV = Vδt is associated with δu and since also the rates u , u , and p must be expressed interms of (δu , δp), (21) is not a linear problem which could be solved directly. To be able tosolve this evolutionary problem in time, a suitable time discretization must be introduced,as will be explained in the next section.

3.3. Time discretization of the incremental subproblem

In the present section we establish a semidiscretized formulation which leads to linearsubproblems defined at each time level within the framework of the updated reference config-urations and time integration scheme based on the rate formulation treated in the precedingsection. Obviously, time discretization of problem (21) is not unique. Implicit Runge-Kuttamethods are introduced by means of intermediate time stages, see e.g. [34]. In computa-tional mechanics, the Newmark-α integration schemes which involve only two consecutivetime levels became very popular [30, 42]. When solving a nonlinear problem with dissipa-tion, the naturally arising but seldom considered question concerns with the influence of thetime step length and the number of iterations employed to solve the nonlinear problem bythe Newton-Raphson method on the dissipated energy.

Here we consider a multistep approach based on combination of forward and backwardfinite differences to discretize the time derivatives and the convection δtV ; optionally atwo-level computational scheme of the “leap frog” type, [34] can be defined which usesintermediate time levels. For this we introduce a uniform time discretization of the timeinterval [0, T ] upon introducing the time levels tk, k = 0, 1, . . . , such that

⋃kk=1[tk−1, tk] =

[0, T ]. By ak we refer to an approximated value of a(tk). Further, we define δuk = uk−uk−1

and consider the following approximation of time derivatives at t∗ ∈ [tk−1, tk],

u(t∗) ≈ (uk − uk−1)/δt = δuk/δt ,

u(t∗) ≈ (δuk − δuk−1)/(δt)2 = (uk − 2uk−1 + uk−2)/(δt)2

...u(t∗) ≈ (δuk − 2δuk−1 + δuk−2)/(δt)3

= (uk − 3uk−1 + 3uk−2 − uk−3)/(δt)3 .

(36)

Below we propose a predictor-corrector time-integration scheme, whereby the correctoruses the rate of the residual at an interpolated time level. The need for the 3rd time derivativein the rate form equations (in fact δu is involved) apparently induces the 4 step numericalscheme, see (36)4, however, as will be shown later, the predictor step circumvents thiscomplication so that 3 consecutive steps are involved only. In order to get a linear subproblemarising from (33)-(35), the convection velocity field V involved in these expressions can beapproximated by the backward difference, i.e. V(tk) ≈ (uk − uk−1)/δt, while the timederivatives are approximated using (36) with t∗ = tk. For the corrector step, V will beapproximated using an estimate of (uk+1 − uk)/δt computed by the predictor.

In the rest of this paper, we shall confine to the simplified dynamics of the porousmedium which disregards the inertia induced by the relative fluid-solid motion. The time

12

discretization of (15) yields the following approximation

Φk(S ll≤k;Z) =

∫Ωk

(σk : ∇v − ρk(gk − (δuk − δuk−1)/(δt)2) · v

)+

∫Ωk

(B : ∇δu

k

δtq −w k · ∇q + qMk δp

k

δt

),

w k = −K k(∇pk − ρkf (f k − (δuk − δuk−1)/(δt)2))

(37)

for all Z = (v , q) ∈ V0(tk)×Q0(tk).The discretization of the incremental operators (33)-(35) evaluated at time t ∈ [tk, tk+1]

with δV = δu∗ yields expressions where we use the following notation Ω(t) = Ω, IDeff :=IDeff(t), σeff := σeff(t) and p = p(t); all other coefficients are evaluated according to theconfiguration Ω. From (33) we get

δΦk(S, S ll≤k+1; (v , 0)) (δu , δp, δg) =∫Ω

IDeffe(δuk+1) : e(v) +

∫Ω

(∇δuk+1σeff(tk)) : ∇v

−∫

Ω

p [B : ∇v(∇ · δu∗)−∇v∇δu∗ : B ]−∫

Ω

(δpk+1B : ∇v + pδB : ∇v)

−∫

Ω

ρ(δgk+1 − (δuk+1 − 2δuk + δuk−1)/(δt)2

)· v

−∫

Ω

(gk − (δuk+1 − δuk)/(δt)2)

)R(δu∗, δp∗) · v −

∫ˆ∂σΩ

(δhk+1 + (n · δuk)Hh) · v .

(38)

Eq. (35) is multiplied by δt, so that u in (15)2 is replaced by δu . The discretization resultsin

δΦk(S, S ll≤k+1; (0, q)) (δu , δp, δf )δt =∫Ω

(q(B : ∇δuk+1)(∇ · δu∗)− q∇δuk+1∇δu∗ : B + qB : ∇(δuk+1 − δuk) + qδB∇δu∗

)− δt

∫Ω

(δw k+1 · ∇q + w k+1 · [∇q∇ · δu∗ −∇q∇δu∗]

)+

∫Ω

q(M(δpk+1 − δpk) + δMδpk +Mδpk+1(∇ · δu∗)

),

(39)

where the differential of the seepage velocity is given by the following approximation:

δw k+1 =− δK (∇pk − ρkf (f k − (δuk+1 − δuk)/(δt)2))

+ K k(∇pk∇δuk +ρkfκfδpk(f k − (δuk+1 − δuk)/(δt)2))

−K k(∇δpk+1 − ρkf

(δf k+1 − (δuk+1 − 2δuk + δuk−1)/(δt)2

)).

(40)

13

Above δu∗ can be substituted by δuk.In order to simplify notation, we shall introduce the following tensors and material

coefficients depending on the solution at time t and on other variables associated withtime t:

AA = (Aijkl) , Aijkl = Deffijkl + σeff

lj δki + p(Bilδjk −Bijδkl) ,

B(v) = B(∇ · v − (∇v)T ) ,

K (v) = (∇ · v)K −K (∇v)T − (∇v)K ,

K (v , q) =[I (κf

−1q +∇ · v)−∇v]K

M(v) = M∇ · v ,

R(v , q) = (ρ+ (ρf − ρs)(1− φ))∇ · v +φρfκf

q = ρf

(∇ · v +

φ

κf

)q .

(41)

Further, we shall employ an abbreviated notation:

δuk+1 7→ u , δpk+1 7→ p ,

δuk 7→ u , δpk 7→ p .(42)

Two incremental linearized subproblems will be formulated which provide the solutionsof the problem introduced in the Definition 3. In this context, we emphasize the differentmeaning of u and p which now denote the increments δu and δp. By δV and δQ we denotesets of admissible increments δuk+1 ≡ u and δpk+1 ≡ p respectively. For a given timediscretization with a time step δt, the sets δV (tk+1) × δQ(tk+1) and V0(tk) × Q0(tk) aredefined according to the Dirichlet boundary conditions considered according to (36). Alsothe tensors AA,B ,K and M are defined in Ω ≡ Ω(tk), and the volume load gk+1 is givenat tk.

3.3.1. The predictor step

The predictor step is based on the approximation (20) with δΦ evaluated at tk

0!

= Φk+1(S(tk+1),Z) ≈ Φk(S ll≤k,Z) + δΦk(S ll≤k,Z) (δS, δV) , (43)

where δV = u is approximated by δuk, thus, recalling (42). For all quantities associatedwith the configuration at tk we use the following simplified notation: Ω := Ω(tk), ID

eff :=IDeff(tk),σ

eff := σeff(tk); all other coefficients are evaluated according to the configurationΩk = Ω(tk).

By virtue of Definition 3, the following is to be solved: Find (u , p) ∈ δV (tk+1)×δQ(tk+1),

14

such that∫Ω

IDeffe(u) : e(v) +

∫Ω

σeff : ∇v(∇u)T

−∫

Ω

pkB : [(∇v)(∇ · u)−∇v∇u ]−∫

Ω

(pB + pkδB) : ∇v

−∫

Ω

(gk − (u − u)/(δt)2)

)R(u∗, p∗) · v +

∫Ω

ρku(δt)−2 · v

=

∫Ω

ρk(δgk+1 + (2u − uk−1)/(δt)2

)· v +

∫∂σΩ

(δhk+1 + (n · u∗)Hhk) · v)

+

∫∂σΩ

hk · v −∫

Ω

(σk : ∇v − ρk(gk − (u − uk−1)/(δt)2) · v

),

(44)

for all v ∈ V0(tk) and∫Ω

qB : [(∇u)(∇ · u∗)−∇u∇u∗] +

∫Ω

qB : ∇u +

∫Ω

qM (1 +∇ · u∗) p+

∫Ω

qδM∗p

+ δt

∫Ω

K(∇p+ ρkf (u − 2u + uk−1)/(δt)2

)· ∇q

− δt∫

Ω

K

(∇pk∇u∗ +

ρkfκfp∗(f k − (u − u)/(δt)2))

)· ∇q

+ δt

∫Ω

K(∇pk − ρkf (f k − (u − u)/(δt)2)

)· (∇q∇ · u∗ −∇q∇u∗)

+ δt

∫Ω

δK ∗(∇pk − ρkf (f k − (u − u)/(δt)2)) · ∇q

=

∫Ω

q (B : ∇u − δB∗ : ∇u∗) +

∫Ω

qMp

−∫

Ω

(qB : ∇u + δtK (∇pk − ρkf (f k+1 − (u − uk−1)/(δt)2)) · ∇q + qMp

),

(45)

for all q ∈ Q0(tk).

Definition 4. (Weak solution of the predictor subproblem)The weak solution of the predictorsubproblem at time level tk+1 is the couple (u , p) ∈ δV (tk+1)× δQ(tk+1) which satisfies∫

Ω

(ρk + R(u∗, p∗)

)/(δt)2u · v +

∫Ω

[AA∇u ] : ∇v −∫

Ω

pB : ∇v

=

∫Ω

(ρk + R(u∗, p∗)

)(u/(δt)2 + gk+1) · v

+

∫∂σΩ

(hk+1 + (n · u∗)Hhk) · v −∫

Ω

(σk − pkδB

): ∇v ,

(46)

15

for all v ∈ V0(tk) and∫Ω

q[B + B(u∗)] : ∇u + δt

∫Ω

K∇p · ∇q +

∫Ω

q(M + M(u∗) + δM∗)p

+ (δt)−1

∫Ω

ρkf∇q ·(K + K (u∗, p∗) + δK

)u

= −∫

Ω

q (δB : ∇u)− δt∫

Ω

(K + K (u∗) + δK

)∇pk · ∇q

+ δt

∫Ω

ρkf∇q ·(K + K (u∗, p∗) + δK

)(f k + u/(δt)2) ,

(47)

for all q ∈ Q0(tk), where u∗ = u .It is worth noting that the final form of the predictor subproblem involves the backward

differences u only, since uk−1 and p can be eliminated form (44) and (45) due to the con-sistent approximation of Φk+1 using Φk and the differential δΦk, both related to the sameconfiguration Ωk.

3.3.2. The corrector step

The predictor step provides the increment (δuk+1, δpk+1) approximation denoted as(upr, ppr) which is related to the time step δt. It enables to establish the configurationΩ at time t = tk+1/2 = (tk + tk+1)/2 and to define the secant approximation of the residualfunctional Φk+1(S(tk+1),Z) in the sense of Definition 3. The displacement and pressurefields are introduced, as follows: u = uk + 1

2upr and p = pk + 1

2ppr. For all quantities

associated with the updated configuration at t we use the following simplified notationΩ := Ω(t) = Ω, IDeff := IDeff(t),σeff := σeff(t); also all other coefficients are evaluated ac-cording to the configuration Ω. Therefore, the loads g , f and h are given by interpolationh := hk+1/2 = (hk + hk+1) and in analogy for g and f .

The corrector step is based on the approximation

0!

= Φk+1(S(tk+1),Z) ≈ Φk(S ll≤k,Z) + δΦ(S, S ll≤k,Z) (δS, δV) , (48)

In the corrector step, we shall use the approximations according to (36) with t∗ =(tk+1 + tk)/2, where δt = tk − tk−1 = tk+1 − tk,

u(tk) ≈ upr/δt , p(tk) ≈ ppr/δt ,

u(tk) ≈ (upr − upr)/(δt)2 .(49)

Using (49) the residuals can be introduced

ΦSk (v) =

∫Ωk

(σk : ∇v − ρk(gk − (upr − upr)/(δt)2) · v

)−∫∂σΩk

hk · v ,

ΦFk (q) =

∫Ωk

(qBk : ∇upr + δtK k(∇pk − ρkf (f k − (upr − upr)/(δt)2)) · ∇q + qMkp

).

(50)

16

We can now define the corrector problem involving the convection field u∗ := upr and alsothe pressure perturbation p∗ := ppr. Compute the increments (u , p) ∈ δV (tk+1)× δQ(tk+1)associated with the time step δt, such that∫

Ω

IDeffe(u) : e(v) +

∫Ω

σeff : ∇v(∇u)T

−∫

Ω

pB : [(∇v)(∇ · u)−∇v∇u ]−∫

Ω

(pB + pδB) : ∇v

−∫

Ω

(g − (u − u)/(δt)2)

)R(u∗, p∗) · v +

∫Ω

ρu(δt)−2 · v

=

∫Ω

ρ(δgk+1 + (2u − uk−1)/(δt)2

)· v +

∫∂σΩ

(δhk+1 + (n · u∗)Hh) · v − ΦSk (v)

(51)

for all v ∈ V0(t) and (again multiplied by δt)∫Ω

qB : [(∇u)(∇ · u∗)−∇u∇u∗] +

∫Ω

qB : ∇u +

∫Ω

qM (1 +∇ · u∗) p+

∫Ω

qδM∗p

+ δt

∫Ω

K(∇p− ρfδf k+1 + ρf (u − 2u + uk−1)/(δt)2

)· ∇q

− δt∫

Ω

K

(∇p∇u∗ +

ρfκfp∗(f − (u − u)/(δt)2))

)· ∇q

+ δt

∫Ω

K(∇p− ρf (f − (u − u)/(δt)2)

)· (∇q∇ · u∗ −∇q∇u∗)

+ δt

∫Ω

δK (∇p− ρf (f − (u − u)/(δt)2)) · ∇q

=

∫Ω

q (B : ∇u − δB∗ : ∇u∗) +

∫Ω

qMp− ΦFk (q) ,

(52)

for all q ∈ Q0(t). Some straightforward rearrangements of these equations lead to thedefinition of the increment (ucr, pcr) ≡ (u , p).

Definition 5. (Weak solution of the corrector subproblem)The weak solution of the correctorsubproblem at time level tk+1 is the couple (u , p) ∈ δV (tk+1)× δQ(tk+1) which satisfies∫

Ω

(ρ+ R(u∗, p∗))/(δt)2u · v +

∫Ω

[AA∇u ] : ∇v −∫

Ω

pB : ∇v

=

∫Ω

(R(u∗, p∗)(g + u/(δt)2) + ρ(δgk+1 + (2u − uk−1)/(δt)2)

)· v

+

∫∂σΩ

(δhk+1 + (n · u∗)Hh) · v +

∫Ω

pδB : ∇v − ΦSk (v) ,

(53)

17

for all v ∈ V0(tk) and∫Ω

q[B + B(u∗)] : ∇u + δt

∫Ω

K∇p · ∇q +

∫Ω

q(M + M(u∗) + δM∗)p

+ (δt)−1

∫Ω

ρf∇q ·(K + K (u∗, p∗) + δK

)u

=

∫Ω

q (B : ∇u − δB : ∇u +Mp)− δt∫

Ω

(K (u∗) + δK

)∇p · ∇q

+ δt

∫Ω

ρf∇q · [K (u∗, p∗) + δK ]rA + δt

∫Ω

ρf∇q ·KrB − ΦFk (q) ,

(54)

for all q ∈ Q0(tk), where

rA = f + u/(δt)2 , rB = δf k+1 + (2u − uk−1)/(δt)2 . (55)

The new configuration Ωk+1 is established using the increments ucr := u and pcr := passociated with the time step δt. Consequently, although the mid-time level states are usedonly in the corrector problem, they can be updated by an interpolation such as the followingone which has been employed in this work:

uk+1/2 = uk + (upr + ucr)/2 , pk+1/2 = pk + (ppr + pcr)/2 . (56)

When computing increments (u1, p1), at time level k = 0, u := δtu(0) can be defineddue to the initial condition, whereas u−1 is undefined. However, u−1 occurs in (53)-(55)involving the expression u− u−1 ≈ (δt)2u(0). It approximates the initial acceleration whichcan be computed easily due to the linearity of the residual Φt at time t = 0 with respectto acceleration and pressure rate fields u(0) and p(0). For this we consider (13) with thestress defined according to (1) where the effective stress is expressed using the given initialconditions on the displacement, u0 = u(0), and pressure p0 = p(0). At time t = 0+, themodel equations in (14) read as∫

Ω

ρu0+ · v =

∫∂Ω

h0+ · v +

∫Ω

ρg0+ · v −∫

Ω

σ(u0, p0) : ∇v ∀v ∈ V0(0) ,∫Ω

qMp0+ = −∫

Ω

∇q ·K(∇p0 + ρf (u

0+ − f 0+))−∫

Ω

qB : ∇u0 ∀q ∈ Q0(0) ,

(57)

where u(0), u(0) and p(0) are given by the initial conditions. First u0+ can be solved using(57)1, consequently p0+ is obtained from (57)2. Then we put u−1 = u − u0+(δt)2 and alsop = p0+δt.

3.4. Spatial discretization and computational algorithm

Problem (46)-(47) and (53)-(54) can be solved using the finite element method (FEM).Since details related to the numerical approximation are beyond the scope of the presentpublication, we focus on the solution algorithm. For the sake of clarity we shall return to

18

the labeling the variables associated with time tk by the superscript k and denote the finitetime increments by δ, thus, uk+1 = uk + δu .

For the spatial discretization we use the mixed conforming finite elements with piecewiseQ2 approximation for the displacements and Q1 approximation for the fluid pressure; thiscombination which is coherent with the restriction of the Babuska–Brezzi condition [10]is quite usual when dealing with this kind of mixed displacement–pressure formulations.For both the incremental subproblems, i.e. the predictor and the corrector problems, thediscretization yields the following linear equations (a self-explaining notation is used):

[(δt)−2M + A]δu−Bδp = f ,

[(δt)−1N + C]δu + [δtK + D]δp = g ,(58)

where all the matrices and the r.h.s. column matrices are constituted by tensors and vectorsgiven at time tk. For the assumed boundary conditions matrices A, K, D and M aresymmetric positive definite. In the linear case, (58) is obtained from the time discretization ofthe Biot model, so that C = BT . In the non-linear case, while B is unchanged, the matricesC arising from the first integral in (47), or (54) reflect the modified tensor B + B(u∗), thusC is only similar to BT . If an incompressible medium is considered, thus both the solid andthe fluid phases are incompressible, the coefficient M vanishes, so that D = 0. Therefore, toallow for a small step δt, a stable approximation satisfying the “inf-sup” condition associatedwith the mixed formulations known from the elasticity should be used, see e.g. [10].

We recall the simplifying assumption of the zero initial conditions, including the firstorder time derivatives, so that u , u , p, p vanish at t0. Below by Ωk we mean the domainpartitioned by the FEM at time tk; thus, Ωk can be considered as the FEM mesh. Theflowchart of the computational algorithm consists of the following steps.

1. Initialization: put k = 0, in Ω0, set the initial conditions u0, p0 and also put δu0 =u(0)δt. By solving (57), compute δu−1 = δu0 − u0+(δt)2 and δp0 = p0+δt.

2. Update the reference configuration Ωk at tk and define the incremental model withload increments δgk+1, δgk+1, and δhk+1 defined at FE mesh nodes.

3. Compute (upr,ppr) by solving the discretized Predictor problem (46)-(47) with loadincrements δgk+1, δgk+1, and δhk+1

4. Introduce the intermediate configuration Ω at tk+1/2 where uk+1 = uk + upr/2 andpk+1 = pk + ppr/2. Update the FE mesh.

5. Compute (ucr,pcr) by solving the discretized Corrector problem (53)-(54) with updatedload increments δgk+1, δgk+1, and δhk+1 defined at FE mesh nodes.

6. Update the solution: uk+1 = uk + ucr/2 and pk+1 = pk + pcr/2. Correct the interme-diate configuration using (56).

7. If k < k, put k := k + 1 and go to step 2.

8. Final postprocessing.

The procedure executed in steps 2 and 4 of the global algorithm comprise the followingactions:

19

• Given the total displacement and pressure fields in terms of the nodal values u and p,respectively, and the convection field u∗ at each FE integration point of Ω do:

– Recover the gradients ∇u ,∇u∗,∇p in Ω and ∇Xu in Ω0.

– Constitute the deformation gradient F = I +∇Xu , and J = detF .

– Compute the effective stress σeff using (1) update the model incremental param-eters IDeff ,B ,K ,M .

– Compute the variations δK , δB and δM associated with u∗ and ∇u∗.

• Assemble the matrices involved in (58) of the FEM incremental model (for the predic-tor, the corrector)

The perturbation δB = 0 due to the solid incompressibility assumed in this paper. Tocompute δK and δM , the convection increment δu∗ is employed in (31).

4. Numerical examples

In this section we present 2D examples which illustrate the model performance. Thenumerical solution is based on the mixed FEM with conforming Q2-Q1 approximation. Themodel has been implemented within our in-house developed code SfePy [15]

4.1. Model validation

In order to validate the proposed non-linear model of the FSPM, we follow two simulationtests performed in Li et al. [30]. For this purpose we also implemented the infinitesimalformulation of the dynamic problem of porous media including the Newmark integrationscheme, as the one used in the referenced article.

4.1.1. Test I: compression

In the first test, we compare responses of the following three models: 1) the linear modelsolved by the Newmark time integration scheme, cf. [30], 2) the linear model where the timederivatives are approximated using the backward finite difference method, and 3) the non-linear model with the predictor-corrector time integration described in the previous sections.The hyperelastic model (2) of the solid skeleton provides also the Hookean material modelfor the linear problems. The rectangular domain 1×10 m is partitioned using a finite elementmesh consisting of 10 elements of dimensions 1 × 1 m is shown in Fig 1 left. In what follows,by lower indices x, y we refer to the coordinate axes. We apply the following boundaryconditions: ux = 0 at left and right edges, uy = 0 at the bottom edge and p = 0 at thetop edge, so the body surface except the top part is assumed to be impermeable. The topboundary is loaded by boundary traction hy(t) = −H(t)h, where H(t) is the Heaviside stepfunction and h = 40 kPa.

The resulting time evolution of the vertical displacement of the top surface is shown inFig. 2 left. The curves corresponding to the linear and non-linear models solved by the finitedifferences coincide and are almost identical to the curve representing the response of the

20

Figure 1: Finite element meshes and applied boundary conditions used for model validation. The greendotted line represents the permeable part of the boundary while the rest of the surface is assumed to beimpermeable (red solid line). The roller supports are applied to the left, right and bottom boundaries, h(t)is a surface load.

linear model solved by the Newmark scheme. The time step in all cases was δt = 0.01 s.The analytic solution of the steady-state compression is uy = eyHm, where Hm is the meshheight and the vertical strain ey can be obtained by solving the non-linear equation:

(1 + ey)µ+1

1 + ey(λ ln(1 + ey)− µ) + h = 0.

The material parameters of the solid skeleton are as follows: Lame coefficients λ =29 MPa, µ = 7 MPa; mass density ρs0 = 2700 kg/m3 and initial volume fraction Φs0 = 0.58.The fluid part is characterized by: mass density ρf0 = 1000 kg/m3, bulk stiffness Kf =22 GPa and hydraulic permeability K = K0I e

β(J−1), where K0 = 0.1/(gρf0) m2 / (Pa · s)and β = 0.8. In Fig. 2 right, we compare the non-linear solutions to the correspondinglinear solutions and to the analytical predictions of non-linear response for surface loadsh = 2, 4, 8 MPa.

4.1.2. Test II: partial compression

Now we consider the square-shaped domain 10× 10 m partitioned by 10× 10 elements.The boundary conditions, as shown in Fig. 1 right, are similar as in the first test, however,the upper boundary is loaded on its right half only which is also non-permeable. The fluidcan evacuate through its left part, where p = 0 is prescribed. The material parameters arethe same as in the previous test except the Lame coefficients which are now λ = 8.4 MPa,µ = 5.6 MPa and the time step is δt = 0.005 s. Fig. 3 shows the time responses of the linearand non-linear models under partial compression h = 4 MPa at two mesh nodes L and R,see Fig. 1 right. The non-linear response is smaller than the linear one which is in agreementwith the previous results. When decreasing the applied load h the both responses coalesce.

21

Figure 2: Compression test – time evolution of the vertical displacement: left) load h = 40 kPa, right)h = 2, 4, 8 MPa.

Figure 3: Partial compression test – time evolution of the vertical displacement at nodes L and R, seeFig. 1 right.

22

Figure 4: Relative volume change J and hyperelastic strain energy W computed for time increments δt =0.01, 0.001, 0.0001 s at point C of domain Ω.

4.2. Effect of time step

In contrast with nonlinear elasticity problems, where the equilibrium can be ensured byreiterations while updating the reference configuration, the choice of a convenient time stepin problems featured by the dissipation is an important issue, since such reiterations are noteasily justified. On one hand, the smaller the step, the smaller the error induced by all theapproximations associated with the time integration. On the other hand, the time step isalso bounded from below to prevent the stability. In this part we solve the problem identicalto the one defined in Sec. 4.1.2 including the boundary conditions and material parameters.The dependency of the solution on δt is illustrated for three different time steps in Figures 4and 5. In Fig. 4, we compare the relative volume change J and the hyperelastic strainenergy W computed for time increments δt = 0.01, 0.001 and 0.0001 s, the values at pointC of domain Ω, see Fig. 1 right, are depicted. The influence of the time step length on thedissipation energy Ψ =

∫ΩK∇p ·∇p is shown in Fig. 5. In general, when decreasing the time

step δt without any FE mesh refinement of the spatial discretization, numerical oscillationsmay deteriorate the solution, since for δt→ 0 the numerical solution converges to the exactsolution of the semidiscretized problem in space. This well known effect pointed out e.g. in[30] is apparent from Fig. 4 where remarkable oscillations of computed responses obtainedwith time increment δt = 0.0001 s appear. The relative volume change, pore pressure fieldand seepage velocity magnitude at time t = 0.1 s (δt = 0.01 s) are presented in Fig. 6 wherealso the deformed FE mesh is shown.

5. Conclusion

In this work we derived an incremental formulation for computational analysis of thefluid-saturated porous media undergoing large deformation. As a modelling assumption, weconsider the Biot model describing the fluid-structure interaction with respect to perturba-tions in the spatial Eulerian configuration at the macroscopic level. The rate form of the

23

Figure 5: Dissipation energy Ψ computed for time increments δt = 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001 s.

Figure 6: Distribution of relative volume change J (left), fluid pore pressure p (middle) and seepage velocitymagnitude |w | (right) at time t = 0.1 s (δt = 0.01 s).

24

equilibrium and the mass conservation equations is derived. This leads to the incrementalformulation coherent with the updated Lagrangian formulation. The time discretization andapproximations of the time derivatives using the increments lead to the predictor–correctoralgorithm where the latter uses a secant approximation of the residual function differential.Further modifications of this algorithm are possible towards higher order implicit integrationschemes introducing intermediate steps (multi-stage algorithms), cf. [12] The relationshipbetween the FEM spatial approximation and the time step associated with the CFL condi-tion is an important issue which requires to estimate the speed of the wave propagation.

The proposed nonlinear Biot-type model has been implemented for 2D problems in theSfePy code [15]. A thorough validation of the model and verification of the incrementalformulation is a complex task which exceeds scopes of this publication, nevertheless, wehave shown that the proposed computational model leads to results which are in accordancewith the published work [30].

As mentioned in the introduction, this work is intended as a basis for our further re-search which will focus on the multiscale modelling of the porous material subject to largedeformations. Since the direct homogenization of the nonlinear problem is cumbersome,it is advisable to benefit from a suitable combination of both the phenomenological andupscaling approaches which provide a suitable tool for a computational homogenization. Inparticular, the homogenization of the fluid-structure interaction can provide the effectivemedium poroelastic coefficients and the permeability as well as the the sensitivity of thesematerial parameters involved in the incremental formulation. In a series of papers [36, 38]and [41] we tackled this topic, however the problem is still open.

Acknowledgments:. This research is supported by the project LO 1506 of the Czech Ministryof Education, Youth and Sports.

References

[1] J. L. Auriault and C. Boutin. Deformable porous media with double porosity. quasi-static. I: Couplingeffects. Transport Porous Med, 7:63–82, 1992.

[2] J. L. Auriault, T. Strzelecki, J. Bauer, and S. He. Porous deformable media saturated by a verycompressible fluid: quasi-statics. Eur J Mech A/Solid, 9(4):373–392, 1990.

[3] M. A. Biot. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys, 12:155–164, 1941.[4] M. A. Biot. Theory of elasticity and consolidation for a porous anisotropic solid. J Appl Phys, 26(2):

182–185, 1955.[5] M. A. Biot. Variational Lagrangian-thermodynamics of non isothermal finite strain. mechanics of porous

solid and thermomolecular diffusion. Int J Solids Struct, 13(6):579–597, 1977.[6] M. A. Biot and D. G. Willis. The elastic coefficients of the theory of consolidation. J Appl Mech, 79:

594–601, 1957.[7] R. I. Borja and E. Alarcon. A mathematical framework for finite strain elastoplastic consolidation part

1: Balance laws, variational formulation, and linearization. Comput Method Appl M, 122(1):145–171,1995. ISSN 0045-7825. DOI:10.1016/0045-7825(94)00720-8.

[8] R. M. Bowen. Theory of mixtures. In Eringen, editor, Continuum Physics, Mixtures and EM FieldTheories, volume III, pages 1–127. Academic Press, New York, 1976.

[9] R. M. Bowen. Compressible porous media models by use of the theory of mixtures. Int J Eng Sci, 20(6):697–735, 1982.

25

[10] F. Brezzi and M. Fortin. Mixed and Hybrid Finite Element Methods. Springer Series in ComputationalMathematics, Springer–Verlag, volume 15 edition, 1991.

[11] D.L. Brown, P. Popov, and Y. Efendiev. Effective equations for fluid-structure interaction with appli-cations to poroelasticity. Appl Anal, 93(4):771–790, 2014.

[12] S. Carstens and D. Kuhl. Higher order accurate implicit time integration schemes for transport prob-lems. Arch Appl Mech, 82:1007–1039, 2012.

[13] J. P. Carter, M. F. Randolph, and C. P. Wroth. Stress and pore pressure changes in clay dur-ing and after the expansion of a cylindrical cavity. Int J Numer Anal Met, 3(4):305–322, 1979.DOI:10.1002/nag.1610030402.

[14] D. Chapelle and P. Moireau. General coupling of porous flows and hyperelastic formulations-fromthermodynamics principles to energy balance and compatible time schemes. Eur J Mech B/Fluid, 46:82–96, 2014. DOI:10.1016/j.euromechflu.2014.02.009.

[15] R. Cimrman. SfePy - write your own FE application. In Pierre de Buyl and Nelle Varoquaux, editors,Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Python in Science (EuroSciPy 2013), pages 65–70, 2014.

[16] O. Coussy. Poromechanics. John Wiley & Sons, 2004.[17] O. Coussy, L. Dormieux, and E. Detournay. From mixture theory to Biot’s approach for porous media.

Int J Solids Struct, 35(34-35):4619–4635, 1998.[18] M. A. Crisfield. Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, volume Volume 2:

Advanced Topics. John Wiley & Sons, 1997.[19] R. De Boer. The thermodynamic structure and constitutive equations for fluid-saturated compressible

and incompressible elastic porous solids. Int J Solids Struct, 35:4557–4573, 1998.[20] R. de Boer. Theory of porous media: highlights in the historical development and current state. Springer-

Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2000.[21] R. De Boer and J. Bluhm. The influence of compressibility on the stresses of elastic porous solids–

semimicroscopic investigations. Int J Solids and Struct, 36(31–32):4805–4819, 1999.[22] P. de Buhan, X. Chateau, and L. Dormieux. The constitutive equations of finite strain poroelasticity

in the light of a micro-macro approach. Eur J Mech A/solid, 17:909–921, 1998.[23] S. Diebels and W. Ehlers. Dynamic analysis of a fully saturated porous medium accounting for geo-

metrical and material non-linearities. Int J Num Meth Eng, 39(1):81–97, 1996.[24] L. Dormieux, A. Molinari, and D. Kondo. Micromechanical approach to the behavior of poroelastic

materials. J Mech Phys Solid, 50:2203–2231, 2002.[25] W. Ehlers and J. Bluhm. Porous Media. Theory, Experiments and Numerical Applications. Springer,

Berlin, 2002.[26] A. Gajo. A general approach to isothermal hyperelastic modelling of saturated porous media at finite

strains with compressible solid constituents. P Roy Soc Lond A Mat), 466, 2010.[27] W. G. Gray and B. A. Schrefler. Analysis of the solid phase stress tensor in multiphase porous media.

Int J Numer Anal Met, 31(4):541–581, 2007. DOI:10.1002/nag.541.[28] J. Haslinger and P. Neittaanmaki. Finite Element Approximation for Optimal Shape Design. J. Wiley,

Chichester, 1988.[29] E. J. Haug, K. Choi, and V. Komkov. Design Sensitivity Analysis of Structural Systems. Academic

Press, Orlando, 1986.[30] Ch. Li, R. I. Borja, and R. A. Regueiro. Dynamics of porous media at finite strain. Comput Method

Appl M, 193(36-38):3837–3870, 2004. DOI:10.1016/j.cma.2004.02.014.[31] Bernd Markert. A biphasic continuum approach for viscoelastic high-porosity foams: Comprehensive

theory, numerics, and application. Arch Comput Method E, 15(4):371–446, 2008.[32] E. A. Meroi, B. A. Schrefler, and O. C. Zienkiewicz. Large strain static and dynamic semisaturated

soil behaviour. Int J Numer Anal Met, 19(2):81–106, 1995. DOI:10.1002/nag.1610190203.[33] M. Nazem, D. Sheng, J. P. Carter, and S. W. Sloan. Arbitrary lagrangian-eulerian method for large-

strain consolidation problems. Int J Numer Anal Met, 32(9):1023–1050, 2008. DOI:10.1002/nag.657.[34] S.-H. Park and T.-Y. Lee. High-order time-integration schemes with explicit time-splitting methods.

Mon Weather Rev, 137(11):4047–4060, 2009. DOI:10.1175/2009mwr2885.1.

26

[35] J. H. Prevost. Two-surface versus multi-surface plasticity theories: A critical assessment. Int J NumerAnal Met, 6(3):323–338, 1982. DOI:10.1002/nag.1610060305.

[36] E. Rohan. Sensitivity strategies in modelling heterogeneous media undergoing finite deformation. MathComput Simulat, 61(3-6):261–270, 2003.

[37] E. Rohan. Modelling large deformation induced microflow in soft biological tissues. Theor Comp FluidDyn, 20:251–276, 2006.

[38] E. Rohan and V. Lukes. On modelling nonlinear phenomena in deforming heterogeneous mediausing homogenization and sensitivity analysis concepts. Appl Math Comput, 267:583–595, 2015.DOI:10.4203/ccp.106.85.

[39] E. Rohan, R. Cimrman, and V. Lukes. Numerical modelling and homogenized constitutive law of largedeforming fluid saturated heterogeneous solids. Comput Struct, 84(17-18):1095–1114, 2006.

[40] E. Rohan, S. Shaw, and J.R. Whiteman. Poro-viscoelasticity modelling based on upscaling quasistaticfluid-saturated solids. Comput Geosci, 18(5):883–895, 2013. DOI:10.1007/s10596-013-9363-1.

[41] E. Rohan, S. Naili, and T. Lemaire. Double porosity in fluid-saturated elastic media: deriving effectiveparameters by hierarchical homogenization of static problem. Continuum Mech Thermodyn, 28(5):1263–1293, 2015. DOI:10.1007/s00161-015-0475-9.

[42] B. Shahbodagh-Khan, N. Khalili, and G. Alipour Esgandani. A numerical model for nonlinear largedeformation dynamic analysis of unsaturated porous media including hydraulic hysteresis. ComputGeotech, 69:411–423, 2015. DOI:10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.06.008.

[43] J.C. Simo and T.J.R. Hughes. Computational Inelasticity, volume 7 of Interdisciplinary Applied Math-ematics. Springer, 1998.

[44] X. Song and R. I. Borja. Mathematical framework for unsaturated flow in the finite deformation range.Int J Numer Meth Eng, 97(9):658–682, 2013. DOI:10.1002/nme.4605.

27